Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

I was stating that when it comes to amending the Constitution on ANY issue, ot just this one, that I believe there should be a preponderance of evidence to make someone favor the amendment, and those who are "on the fence" should reject without evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the amendment would improve the life of the people, was well-constructed, lawsuit-proof, etc. You of course are free to have looser standards for changing your constitution. That's all--I just hold a lot higher bar for amending the constitution than for passing a "regular" law (which in this case already exists anyway, but it's true on any amendment issue). This also would be the first time in a century that the constitution was amended to take AWAY rights from a segment of the population, but you have stated your opinion, and I'm stating mine.

And my opinion is that people should be given time to make up their own minds if they are "on the fence" rather than being told by anyone else how they should vote.

I voted against it already and support gay marriage, but to me this represents several things:

1) a vote on something that already is in place (same sex marriage is already illegal)
2) big government
3) a potential loss of tax revenue from business that choose to cover domestic partnerships- and there are many - and they may avoid relocating to NC
4) more costs to taxpayers when cases end up in court, as the wording of the amendment does not prohibit that. Note on the ballot only the first sentence of the following (Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts)
5) as seen above, private companies will still be able to cover domestic partnerships anyway so in some cases the point it moot
6) the town of Chapel Hill will not want to discontinue covering domestic partnerships
7) it's a basic civil rights issue to me
8) it will affect healthcare for children regardless of parents' sexual orientation

NO, it would not PREVENT marriage between same-sex partners. THAT IS ALREADY PREVENTED BY STATUTE. Numerous people who do not support same-sex marraige are still voting to reject the amendment becasue of its other ramifications. so many news channels are getting this wrong when they say "the Amenemdnet would ban same-sex marriage"--it is ALREADY banned! What it would do is block ANY "domestic legal union" (whatever that is--even legal scholars aren't usre) other than male + female marriage from being legal, ever in this state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Francois

This also would be the first time in a century that the constitution was amended to take AWAY rights from a segment of the population

I guess the only segment of the population whose rights are being taken away by this amendment are unmarried heterosexual couples? (Since same-sex couples already lost the right by statute.)

[For the record, I'm voting against this Amendment. I find it morally repugnant.]

I guess the only segment of the population whose rights are being taken away by this amendment are unmarried heterosexual couples? (Since same-sex couples already lost the right by statute.)

And non-heterosexual couples who currently receive domestic partner benefits or might someday. It is true that gay people already cannot get married, but many are currently in domestic partner arrangements that receive SOME kinds of benefits. And of course, there is always the possibility that civil unions COULD eventually happen here (a majority of North Carolinians do not believe in same-sex marriage, but a majority DO believe that same-sex couples deserve the change to protect their relationships via civil unions, someday (some localities give such benefits now, and others could choose to pass them in the future). The Amendment would permanently ban them statewide, taking the choice to offer them away from municipalities and possibly from private companies.

It would affect other arenas, such as child custody, domestic violence, and possibly medical visitation privileges. Google "protect NC families" for more examples; my bookmarks are on the other computer.

Gee.
I would love to see more discussion about the legal aspects of the amendment and less abrasive attitudinal stuff that will end up with the thread being locked down.

How would a suit proceed through the NC judicial system, and likely outcomes, is very interesting to me.

Who would file suit locally?

Would there need to be a triggering event, or would the passage of the amendment be sufficient to provide standing for a suit?

Some individual or class of individuals would have to file suit and demonstrate they were unequivocally harmed by the current state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

Passage of the proposed constitutional amendment would make this traditional marriage challenge much harder. I'm not sure why those opposed to the current state law haven't attempted to overturn it, but I imagine this will be the next step if the proposed amendment fails passage this month.

It should be noted that private corporations and organizations may continue to define and offer employee benefits to anyone they wish. This issue is about state government recognition such as benefits offered to married state employees, but not to unmarried state government employees.

It actually bugs me more that a constitutional amendment goes up for a vote in a may primary election.

Really? Something as important as an AMENDMENT to the NC CONSTITUTION can be decided upon by fewer voteres?

I don't normally go out and vote during the primary, and probably wouldn't have this time if the governor wasn't up for primary... the pres. nominations are pretty much decided at this point.

Not sure I would have known about the amendment issue if there weren't signs popping up all over the place and it hitting the news. I find it a bit disturbing that something like this would 'slip' through...

Shouldn't these things be limited to Nov elections when turnout is higher?

The problem was the General Assembly did not have enough votes to get it on the ballot without some support from the minority party. They got the necessary votes from them in exchange for placing the question on the May primary election ballot only. It was May or nothing.

It should be noted that private corporations and organizations may continue to define and offer employee benefits to anyone they wish. This issue is about state government recognition such as benefits offered to married state employees, but not to unmarried state government employees.

WUNC had some folks on a while back debating the amendment, and this was one point that they debated - as to whether the language about private contracts applied to private arrangements that are not in form contracts, such as benefit plans. The net of it was that it isn't crystal clear.

WUNC had some folks on a while back debating the amendment, and this was one point that they debated - as to whether the language about private contracts applied to private arrangements that are not in form contracts, such as benefit plans. The net of it was that it isn't crystal clear.

I understand what they're saying, but they must be referring to a personal legal contract between two individuals. Those are always subject to judicial review when someone is unhappy with the contract's unexpected outcome.

Employee benefits are normally non-contractual since they're are subject to change with little notice depending on the company's economic health and changes in present-day HR practices.

I worked for the same major employer (2 million employees worldwide) for 30 years and our benefits changed almost every year. I was able to carry some of those benefits into retirement, but they still change every year. No one ever had a legal contract unless it was dealing with some individualized benefit not available to the normal workforce.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.